[another_someone]

Global warming is, it seems, a fact. There is more CO2 in the air than there used to be. At least some of that increase is due to industry.
What is less clear is that there is a causal relation between these data.

No, it is not clear there is a causal relationship, much less, if such a relationship exists, in which direction the causal relation might be.

Statistical correlation does not indicate the direction of a causal link, and a coincidence of two events does not amount to statistical correlation.

That having been said, it has been shown that in the geological past there does seem to be a greater statistical correlation between CO₂ and temperature, but the initial indications are that this is the reverse of the causal link suggested by the doom sayers.

Whether or not burning oil and gas contributes to global warming it would be prudent to reduce our consumption simply because these are finite resources.

This does not necessarily follow.

What is prudent is that we continue to develop alternative technologies that do not depend on mineral oil and gas, but this is different from saying that we should reduce the usage of oil and gas at present.  The reason I suggest that it does not make sense to reduce consumption of oil and gas at present is because these are mature industries that benefit from economies of scale, and trying to scale back these industries will probably have the effect of undermining these economies of scale, and possibly causing the industries to crash (just as the coal industries in Europe crashed long before we actually ran out of coal in Europe).

The argument that even if there is no link between CO2 and global warming we should negotiate international treaties to reduce CO2 production fails to take account of the damage that such treaties may do to standards of living in the developing world. Those last 2 statements are not contradictory. Here in the Western world we have access to technology that can reduce our dependence of fossil fuels. That technology and infrastructure simply isn't present in the developing world. Whatever your stance on nuclear power, it's fair to say that the rich West is better placed to build reactors than the developing world.

If your argument is in support of positive investment in nuclear (and other alternative) technologies, then I have no argument with it.  If you are trying to suggest that we should take measures to make people's lives a misery by imposing onerous taxation and complex bureaucracy upon their present lifestyles, then that is admission that we presently have no better alternative that we have, and the only choice we have is to make people's lives so miserable that the impoverished options we offer them seem like a godsend compared to the economic and bureaucratic nightmare we create for them.

When we have developed genuine alternatives to the existing fuel sources that present a positive  step forward, then there should be no need to apply punitive legislation to persuade people it is a good choice to switch.

The fact is that while any resource, including (but not limited to) mineral oil, is finite; all the evidence is that there is no immediate emergency requirement to substitute for it, and so no need for emergency measures, merely reason to prudent investment.  Oil is unlikely to run out in my life time (in fact, I suspect that like coal, we will have switched away from oil before it actually runs out).  It may well be that within the life time of the next generation, we will have required to switch to alternative fuels, but that is still a reasonable time in which to do so in an orderly way without imposing panic measures today.

[Mjhavok]

What about Americas answer to global warming. SPACE MIRRORS. Seriously.

[another_someone]

Space mirrors are going have to be extremely massive to have any significant impact, and then will also become a navigational problem for spacecraft - do you really want something the size of a continent floating up there in space, even if you could get it up in the first place?

[Mjhavok]

Space mirrors are going have to be extremely massive to have any significant impact, and then will also become a navigational problem for spacecraft - do you really want something the size of a continent floating up there in space, even if you could get it up in the first place?

I said that as a joke. I was amazed it was an actual idea.